What do you Atheists of the forum believe in?

[Tale]

I'm hazarding a guess.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Written by an assistant professor of law. I'm not sure it's his field.

He makes a lot of good points though, and presents evidence.

[Calax]

Written by an assistant professor of law. I'm not sure it's his field.

He makes a lot of good points though, and presents evidence.

Although his evidence could be about as well constructed as the evidence that young earth creationists use (which it seems to be given he cites the boston globe and world net daily). Particularly given that he tries to present that mini-black holes will expand and possibly eat the world as something posited by scientists when the source he cites (World net daily: here) states that it is random people who are contacting the organizations and saying "don't do it! you'll eat the world!" and making death threats against the scientists. Ok, I take that back, they also report on a news story they ran that a group of scientists (led by a chemist...) sue to stop it on the grounds, but the physicist (you know, the guys who work on this stuff) just said that that was a load of tripe.

 

 

To put it basically, the law professor is citing non-scientific sources that seem to be heavily bias against the LHC.

 

Hell, he's not even doing it on the LHC, he's doing it on the legal surroundings of the LHC.

 

In this article, I explore the LHC case having two goals in mind. My first aim is to fill a gap in the reporter volumes. The black hole case has

all the makings of a law-school classic. The clash of extremes provides an exceptional vehicle for probing our notions of fairness and how we regard the role of the courts. But jurisdictional hurdles have prevented any lawsuit from progressing to the issuance of an opinion on the merits, and no litigation on the horizon appears likely to get there.18 Therefore, I have endeavored to write up the case in a way that makes it ripe for review, discussion, and debate. In this way, I hope this article may serve some readers in the same way that Lon L. Fuller’s “Case of the Speluncean Explorers”19 has served generations of law students by teeing up classic questions of legal philosophy.

 

My second purpose in writing is less playful. I intend to provide a set of analytical and theoretical tools that are usable in the courts for dealing with this case and cases like it. If litigation over the LHC does not put a judge in the position of saving the world, another case soon might. In a technological age of human-induced climate change, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, artificially intelligent machines, and other potential threats, the odds of the courts confronting a real doomsday scenario in the near future are decidedly non-trivial. If the courts are going to be able to play their role in upholding the rule of law in such super-extreme environments, then the courts need analytical methods that will allow for making fair and principled decisions despite the challenges such cases present.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Calax

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I don't really believe in anything, seeing as believing ultimately means nothing.

[Blarghagh]

I believe there's probably a truth to everything out there, but we sure as hell are never gonna know it and wasting time navelgazing about it is a collosal waste of time and life.

 

As for origins, I've always wondered why there has to be one. Can't something just be without it having started?

Edited October 1, 2010 by TrueNeutral

[Orogun01]

I believe there's probably a truth to everything out there, but we sure as hell are never gonna know it and wasting time navelgazing about it is a collosal waste of time and life.

 

As for origins, I've always wondered why there has to be one. Can't something just be without it having started?

Purely ex nihilo? I think that's impossible, there would at least been something there even if it was the presence of nothingness.

[Tale]

Well, I was there. So that was something.

[Gorgon]

Well, time is ultimately an expression of the expansion of the universe since the big bang. If the story must have a beginning it's in whatever caused it.

[Orogun01]

Well, time is ultimately an expression of the expansion of the universe since the big bang. If the story must have a beginning it's in whatever caused it.

IIRC, the consensus on the big bang is that there were previous bangs trough which particles consolidated and the Big bang was caused. So maybe there was something, after all the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe not of existence.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Orogun01

[Guest The Architect]

You have all failed the test and will spend eternity in hell as a result. I am the creator. Watch The Matrix Reloaded for evidence.

 

Purely ex nihilo? I think that's impossible, there would at least been something there even if it was the presence of nothingness.

 

Nothingness by definition wouldn't have a presence.

 

Well, time is ultimately an expression of the expansion of the universe since the big bang. If the story must have a beginning it's in whatever caused it.

IIRC, the consensus on the big bang is that there were previous bangs trough which particles consolidated and the Big bang was caused. So maybe there was something, after all the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe not of existence.

 

Yeah I've heard that before, I didn't think that was the consensus though, rather the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, not just our universe, since the universe by definition is the totality of everything that exists.

 

If we are ever going to find out, we need to do this step by step, and I believe the most important question on this matter, is whether the Big Bang, was caused, or uncaused.

 

How one would go about investigating that, beats the hell out of me.

[Orogun01]

You have all failed the test and will spend eternity in hell as a result. I am the creator. Watch The Matrix Reloaded for evidence.

 

Purely ex nihilo? I think that's impossible, there would at least been something there even if it was the presence of nothingness.

 

Nothingness by definition wouldn't have a presence.

 

Well, time is ultimately an expression of the expansion of the universe since the big bang. If the story must have a beginning it's in whatever caused it.

IIRC, the consensus on the big bang is that there were previous bangs trough which particles consolidated and the Big bang was caused. So maybe there was something, after all the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe not of existence.

 

Yeah I've heard that before, I didn't think that was the consensus though, rather the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, not just our universe, since the universe by definition is the totality of everything that exists. What the space in between them is still is undetermined.

 

If we are ever going to find out, we need to do this step by step, and I believe the most important question on this matter, is whether the Big Bang, was caused, or uncaused.

 

How one would go about investigating that, beats the hell out of me.

You forget dark matter and energy, which can only be measured when it interacts with particles. Sounds like nothingness to me, plus there are new theories about the multiverse and what physically separates these universes.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Orogun01

[Calax]

Also we are still not entirely sure about the time the universe was formed. Current estimates place it at 14 billion years ago, but we are actually launching a telescope that'll tell us for sure if that's true or not (as it can see above 14billion light years)

[Nightshape]

It's probably easier for me to tell you that I don't believe in: miracles, walking on water, water-into-wine, resurrection, prophets, revelations, pillars of salt, apples and serpents, dogma, testaments new or old, pantheons of elephant-headed gods (no matter how cool the iconography), reincarnation, karma, the power of prayer, statues crying, stigmata.... or whose imaginary friend is the most all-powerful.

 

However, I do believe that religion has left behind it as much good (if not more) as it has bad, that the Judaeo-Christian heritage that has forged the culture and society of where I live is a Good Thing, and that people should be left alone to practice their beliefs in peace.

 

But the organised religions of the world are as much an anthropological phase as animism or paganism. Technology is already stretching moral and ethical barriers between the sacred and the profane. This will continue.

 

I'll end by quoting Jesus, who explains why Christianity has been so successful and such a good basis for human development: Jesus said to them,

[Hurlshort]

Infact on a more serious note, I actually despise Judaeo-Christian heritage, that actually set humanity back oh something in the region of around 500 years, really took a while to recover from it. Tell me one good thing that you can honestly say Christianity, in terms of culture and heritage has given to us, because I can't find one.

 

The Sistine Chapel, the preservation of Latin, Hagia Sophia, the Jesuit Order, Rome...

 

I could really go on and on. Christianity is an intrinsic part of European History. For better or worse, the Church was involved in everything that happened in Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

Here is an interesting question: If the Crusades never happen, does Europe still have a Renaissance?

[Calax]

Infact on a more serious note, I actually despise Judaeo-Christian heritage, that actually set humanity back oh something in the region of around 500 years, really took a while to recover from it. Tell me one good thing that you can honestly say Christianity, in terms of culture and heritage has given to us, because I can't find one.

 

The Sistine Chapel, the preservation of Latin, Hagia Sophia, the Jesuit Order, Rome...

 

I could really go on and on. Christianity is an intrinsic part of European History. For better or worse, the Church was involved in everything that happened in Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

Here is an interesting question: If the Crusades never happen, does Europe still have a Renaissance?

I would think so given the aristocracy was wiped out by the black plague. The thing is, the Roman Catholic church completely killed the scientific progress and even made it step back a bit. I mean would there need to be a renaissance if the church wasn't there?

[Hurlshort]

While the Black Death clearly helped in the decline of feudalism, and the Church was a major impediment to the Scientific Revolution, there are a lot of factors to take into account when looking at the Renaissance as a whole.

 

As for the question of whether a Renaissance was needed, it was a rebirth of classical literature, art, and philosophy. The Church didn't cause the Dark Ages, if that is what you are getting at. Most of the written records we have from the Dark Ages comes from the Church, so it played a key part in preventing a total loss of history.

[Raithe]

And in fact a lot of the scientists of the day received funding from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

I know it's a popular stereotype that the church was purely anti-science over the course of the middle ages and into the renaissance.... but that's more "mythic" then actuality. They had good days and bad days.

[Hurlshort]

If you want to look at what set us back 500 years (and by us, it is really just Europe, and it really was closer to 1000 years) then you have to look at the collapse of the Roman Empire. Europe lost a ton of knowledge when the Western Roman Empire collapsed, and the region was unstable for centuries afterwards. The Church played a large role in stabilizing Europe. In fact religion became the one connected strand among all the different ethnic groups and countries that settled in Europe after the collapse.

 

I'm not trying to place the Catholic Church on a pedestal here, there is plenty of corruption and abuse of power in their history. But I consider dismissing the church altogether to be as great a folly as saying the church is infallible.

[Calax]

 

The thing Hurl, is that while the Church kept good records and managed to support some science, they generally didn't allow much progress in the science *points to graph which is obviously bias but hey*.

 

After all, Galileo, Copernicus, and others were censured by the church for deigning to even try to figure out the universe because their conclusions didn't fit with the "good book".

[HoonDing]

The Renaissance was an era of great scientific & cultural upheaval in spite of the Church, that nearly ruined it with the Inquisition, the 80-years war & 30-years war. Basically there was nearly 200 years of non-stop war during the Renaissance caused by the Church's fanatism.

 

Before the Renaissance, the only big war was the Hundred years war, which was solely political. Yet the Church left a mark with the Crusades that exists until this day... without the Crusades, mayhap the Christian west & Muslim world would've been not so much apart as they are today.

 

Also do not forget how the Church destroyed a fledgling new religion in the Languedoc, by instigating the genocide of the Cathars. If this religion could've spread more through Europe before it was snuffed out, it might've changed the entire history.

Edited October 2, 2010 by virumor

[Hurlshort]

Nightshape asked about culture and heritage, which science is only one aspect of. Look, we can cherry pick evidence for and against the church all day, like the fact that all Universities were built and funded primarily by the church.

 

But there really isn't a point to it. Christianity is a major part of human history. It is folly to write it off as some absolute evil, it isn't any more evil than human nature itself.

[Monte Carlo]

 

The thing Hurl, is that while the Church kept good records and managed to support some science, they generally didn't allow much progress in the science *points to graph which is obviously bias but hey*.

 

After all, Galileo, Copernicus, and others were censured by the church for deigning to even try to figure out the universe because their conclusions didn't fit with the "good book".

 

That graph is so meaningless it's not even funny.

[Gorth]

like the fact that all Universities were built and funded primarily by the church.

Say wut?

 

Of the universities I know, none were either founded nor funded by a church. My highchool was founded by a church in 1184 (AD) or so, but the universities? Not really.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Medieval Australia wasn't noted for it's Christianity.

[Nightshape]

^ Medieval Australia wasn't noted for it's Christianity.

 

and its Medievalism...